Skip to main content

An Analysis of Scaling Issues in MPLS-TE Core Networks
RFC 5439

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2020-01-21
05 (System) Received changes through RFC Editor sync (added Verified Errata tag)
2018-12-20
05 (System)
Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed abstract to 'Traffic engineered Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS-TE) is deployed in providers' core networks. As providers plan to …
Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed abstract to 'Traffic engineered Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS-TE) is deployed in providers' core networks. As providers plan to grow these networks, they need to understand whether existing protocols and implementations can support the network sizes that they are planning.

This document presents an analysis of some of the scaling concerns for the number of Label Switching Paths (LSPs) in MPLS-TE core networks, and examines the value of two techniques (LSP hierarchies and multipoint-to-point LSPs) for improving scaling. The intention is to motivate the development of appropriate deployment techniques and protocol extensions to enable the application of MPLS-TE in large networks.

This document only considers the question of achieving scalability for the support of point-to-point MPLS-TE LSPs. Point-to-multipoint MPLS-TE LSPs are for future study. This memo provides information for the Internet community.')
2015-10-14
05 (System) Notify list changed from mpls-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-mpls-te-scaling-analysis@ietf.org to (None)
2012-08-22
05 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Tim Polk
2009-02-11
05 Amy Vezza State Changes to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Amy Vezza
2009-02-11
05 Amy Vezza [Note]: 'RC 5439' added by Amy Vezza
2009-02-09
05 (System) RFC published
2008-12-16
05 (System) IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress
2008-12-16
05 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2008-12-15
05 Cindy Morgan State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Cindy Morgan
2008-12-15
05 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2008-12-15
05 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2008-12-15
05 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2008-12-14
05 Ross Callon State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Ross Callon
2008-12-14
05 Tim Polk [Ballot Position Update] Position for Tim Polk has been changed to No Objection from Undefined by Tim Polk
2008-12-14
05 Tim Polk [Ballot Position Update] Position for Tim Polk has been changed to Undefined from Discuss by Tim Polk
2008-12-14
05 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-te-scaling-analysis-05.txt
2008-12-13
05 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Joseph Salowey.
2008-12-12
05 (System) Removed from agenda for telechat - 2008-12-11
2008-12-11
05 Cindy Morgan State Changes to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation by Cindy Morgan
2008-12-11
05 Mark Townsley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Mark Townsley
2008-12-11
05 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Jari Arkko
2008-12-11
05 Dan Romascanu
[Ballot comment]
I liked the fact that the analysis made in this document took into consideration the managebility at LSRs, Element Managers and NMS level, …
[Ballot comment]
I liked the fact that the analysis made in this document took into consideration the managebility at LSRs, Element Managers and NMS level, as one of the principal criteria for operational and implementation scalability.
2008-12-11
05 Dan Romascanu [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu
2008-12-11
05 Magnus Westerlund [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Magnus Westerlund
2008-12-11
05 Tim Polk
[Ballot discuss]
Joe Salowey raised an important issue in his secdir review from Dec 8.  Specifically, he stated:

  I would like to ask the …
[Ballot discuss]
Joe Salowey raised an important issue in his secdir review from Dec 8.  Specifically, he stated:

  I would like to ask the authors if the security mechanisms that may be
  applied in this networks would affect the scaling of the networks.  My
  assumption is that these mechanisms probably would have some effect on
  scalability, but it would be equal for the various approaches described
  in the document so there would be no affect on the analysis. 

This may not require any changes in the document, but does merit a response.  (My initial
instinct says this merits a new sentence or two in the security considerations, but I won't
draw any firm conclusions until I see the authors' response.)
2008-12-11
05 Tim Polk [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Tim Polk
2008-12-11
05 Chris Newman [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Chris Newman
2008-12-10
05 David Ward
[Ballot comment]
It's interesting to note that control plane hierarchy wasn't discussed. It is the current vector of investigation to improve scaling for TE. Also, …
[Ballot comment]
It's interesting to note that control plane hierarchy wasn't discussed. It is the current vector of investigation to improve scaling for TE. Also, pps of control messaging wasn't taken into account.
2008-12-10
05 David Ward [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by David Ward
2008-12-10
05 Ron Bonica [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ron Bonica
2008-12-10
05 Pasi Eronen [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Pasi Eronen
2008-12-07
05 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Russ Housley
2008-12-03
05 Ross Callon [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ross Callon
2008-12-03
05 Ross Callon Ballot has been issued by Ross Callon
2008-12-03
05 Ross Callon Created "Approve" ballot
2008-12-02
05 Ross Callon State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Ross Callon
2008-12-02
05 Ross Callon Placed on agenda for telechat - 2008-12-11 by Ross Callon
2008-12-02
04 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-te-scaling-analysis-04.txt
2008-12-01
05 Amanda Baber IANA Comments:

As described in the IANA Considerations section, we understand
this document to have NO IANA Actions.
2008-11-30
05 (System) State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system
2008-11-25
05 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Joseph Salowey
2008-11-25
05 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Joseph Salowey
2008-11-16
05 Amy Vezza Last call sent
2008-11-16
05 Amy Vezza State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza
2008-11-16
05 Ross Callon Last Call was requested by Ross Callon
2008-11-16
05 Ross Callon State Changes to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested by Ross Callon
2008-11-16
05 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2008-11-16
05 (System) Last call text was added
2008-11-16
05 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2008-08-14
05 Cindy Morgan
Proto-write-up for draft-ietf-mpls-te-scaling-analysis-03.txt

Intended status : Informational

> (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
> Document Shepherd personally reviewed this …
Proto-write-up for draft-ietf-mpls-te-scaling-analysis-03.txt

Intended status : Informational

> (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
> Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
> document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
> version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

Loa Andersson is the document shepherd.
He has personally reviewed the I-D and believes it is ready for
forwarding to the IESG for publication.

> (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
> and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have
> any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
> have been performed?

This document has been reviewed by the MPLS working group and has been
brought to the attention of the CCAMP working group.

> (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
> needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
> e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
> AAA, internationalization or XML?

No concerns.

> (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
> issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director
> and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he
> or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or
> has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any
> event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated
> that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
> concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
> been filed? If so, please include a reference to the
> disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
> this issue.

The document is sound.
No IPR disclosures filed.

> (1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
> represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with
> others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and
> agree with it?

There were no problems with consensus for this document.

> (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
> discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
> separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It
> should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is
> entered into the ID Tracker.)

No threats. No discontent.

> (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
> document satisfies all ID nits? (See
> http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
> http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are
> not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document
> met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
> Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?

All checks made.

> (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
> informative? Are there normative references to documents that
> are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear
> state? If such normative references exist, what is the
> strategy for their completion? Are there normative references
> that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If
> so, list these downward references to support the Area
> Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

References split.
No downrefs.

> (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
> consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
> of the document? If the document specifies protocol
> extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
> registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If
> the document creates a new registry, does it define the
> proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
> procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a
> reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC2434]. If the
> document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
> conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
> can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

A null IANA section is present.

> (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
> document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
> code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
> an automated checker?

There is no formal language, per se, but there is some mathematics.
The math has been reviewed by several MPLS WG participants.

> (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
> Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document
> Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the
> "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval
> announcement contains the following sections:
>
> Technical Summary
> Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
> and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be
> an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
> or introduction.

Traffic Engineered Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS-TE) is
deployed in providers' core networks. As providers plan to grow these
networks, they need to understand whether existing protocols and
implementations can support the network sizes that they are planning.

This document presents an analysis of some of the scaling concerns
for MPLS-TE core networks, and examines the value of two techniques
(LSP hierarchies, and multipoint-to-point LSPs) for improving
scaling. The intention is to motivate the development of appropriate
deployment techniques and protocol extensions to enable the
application of MPLS-TE in large networks.

This document considers only scalability for point-to-point MPLS-TE.
Point-to-multipoint MPLS-TE is for future study.

The document is targeted at packet-based networks although it should
be equally applicable to other switching technologiess. Note, however,
that the proposed solutions utilize nesting of LSPs - this technique
is well suited to packet networks, but may be inappropriate in some
other technologies.

> Working Group Summary
> Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
> example, was there controversy about particular points or
> were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
> rough?

Nothing of note.
However, several WG participants expressed an interest in knowing how
the scaling properties are affected by fast reroute, and how P2MP
MPLS-TE scales. It was agreed that these issues constitute more
advanced questions and should be addressed in separate drafts.

> Document Quality
> Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
> significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
> implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that
> merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
> e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
> conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If
> there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
> what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
> review, on what date was the request posted?

This is an informational I-D and not a protocol specification.
The algorithmss developed in this document have been applied to
understand MPLS-TE and PBB-TE deployments by several vendors.
2008-08-14
05 Cindy Morgan Draft Added by Cindy Morgan in state Publication Requested
2008-06-19
03 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-te-scaling-analysis-03.txt
2008-04-24
02 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-te-scaling-analysis-02.txt
2008-04-15
05 (System) Document has expired
2007-10-13
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-te-scaling-analysis-01.txt
2007-10-04
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-te-scaling-analysis-00.txt